part 1 of the african peace facility evaluation - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strengths APF has links with RECs (through the AU) and provides institutional support through CB programmes. ERM facilitates rapid response mediation by AU. Opportunities The EEAS offers APF a new framework for longterm strategic thinking and planning, offsetting some of APF’s weaknesses and providing new synergies. CFSP-adjusted procedures could integrate the PSO element of the APF into EEAS and create synergies with other instruments. IfS/ECHO procedures offer precedents to improve APF procedural performance and reaction times. Stronger EU Delegations and RIPs, with better P&S capacities and mandates, could take on APF support functions for RECs. APF is placed to become increasingly the major partner for APSA, able to leverage other funds for the AU, creating new partnerships with and for the AU. APF offers a fulcrum for leveraging the potential strengths of EU MS in Africa, creating synergies for P&S and sustainable development. Building APSA and building peace gives EDF more chance to help Africa to meet the MDGs If EDF fails as a funder, ATHENA could offer EU MS a creative possible alternative structure if substantially revised. CSO networks in Africa are strong and effective: their mobilisation potential is huge if APF can support or leverage APSA and RECs and NIPs in using them. Weaknesses The Panel of the Wise and ‘palaver tree’ strategies have been neglected by AU and consequently by APF. Early Warning has been developed only by ECOWAS and even there it lacks a local ‘early intervention’ dimension. APF has poor visibility, outreach, and communication. Threats While APF makes PSOs important, the strength of P&S could actually unbalance other JAES partnerships and the AU. 35 The European experience since 1945 has shown that permanent peace must be based on solid economic foundations, not on PSOs. The lack of funding from AU MS undermines the AU and unbalances the JAES partnership. 36 The procedural and funding dominance of ‘preventing conflict’ reduces APSA creativity in ‘managing conflict’ at the grassroots, borders of or inside the member states, and avoiding violence through other means. The impact of APF – and its political and innovative roles as the long-term mainstay of APSA – will be diminished if AU/RECs do not improve their management structures and internal procedures. EU MS political support needs to be maintained and boosted, to allow APF to consolidate APSA for long-term conflict management and peace promotion as a lynchpin of EU Africa strategy. AU MS political commitment to AU and RECs is ambivalent: the whole edifice will remain weak if AU MS support cannot be mobilised. It is in the EU’s interest to push AU MS to participate more strongly, since instability in Africa is a threat to Europe. 35 EU MS representatives report that the absence of dedicated funding is repeatedly raised as a problem in meetings concerning the other seven partnerships. 36 On 17 January 2011, AUC Chairman Jean Ping made a New Year speech in which he deplored the funding arrears of AU MS and their tendency to give ever more tasks to the AUC without providing the means to execute them. Page 18 of 49
III. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON APF DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES The APF follows the standard ‘project cycle’ of the European Commission. For the purpose of this evaluation, special consideration is given to programming, financing and the applied aid modalities (i.e. contribution agreements, grant agreements and service contracts). The APF (funded through the 10 th EDF) is programmed in consecutive 3-year rolling programme documents. Art. 12 of the Council Regulation no 617/2007 outline the applicable procedures, task division and decision-making process. In general, this process is jointly undertaken by the African Union and the European Union. Both Commissions play a driving role but both African and, in particular, European Member States are involved. The second phase concerns the actual financing decisions taken by the European Commission. These financing decisions provide the legal basis for the funding of individual APF actions. No agreement may be concluded without prior adoption of a financing decision on the basis of an action fiche, a detailed budget and timeframe for implementation. The administrative procedure for adopting financing decisions has a paramount influence over the necessary time for completing the approval process. This phase also includes the selection of aid modalities. The actual implementation and management of individual contracts are outside the scope of this evaluation as effectiveness, results and impact are to be assessed in the second phase of the APF evaluation. The APF financing decision-making process is governed by the Regulations and internal rules of the European Commission, 10 th EDF rules and procedures, and the European Commission financing decision on the 2008-2010 APF Action Programme 2008-2010 (10 th EDF - Appendixes I and II). III.1 OVERVIEW OF THE APF DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES III.1.1 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES APPLYING TO APF PROGRAMMING OF THE ACTION PLAN Article 12 of the Council Regulation No 617/2007 of 14 May 2007 covering implementation of the 10 th EDF (2008-2013) lays down the decision-making procedures for the programming of the APF Action Plan (2008-2010). It is specified that: Upon request from the African Union, endorsed by the ACP EC Committee of Ambassadors, an action programme shall be prepared by the Commission. This action programme shall, inter alia, specify the objectives pursued, the scope and nature of the possible interventions, the implementation arrangements, and an agreed format for background documents and requests and for reporting. An annex to the action programme shall describe the specific decision making procedures for each possible intervention according to its nature, size and urgency. Moreover, this action programme, including the annex and any changes thereto shall be discussed by the relevant preparatory Council working groups and the Political and Security Committee and approved by Coreper by qualified majority as defined in Article 8(3) of the Internal Agreement before being adopted by the Commission in accordance with the management procedure set out in Article 11(3) of the Council Regulation. The action programme, excluding the annex referred to in point (a), shall be the basis for the financing agreement to be concluded between the Commission and the African Union. Page 19 of 49
Page 1 and 2: THE EUROPEAN UNION’S EDF PROGRAMM
Page 3 and 4: Contents Executive Summary.........
Page 5 and 6: EASBRIG East African Standby Brigad
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EU foreign policy
Page 9 and 10: The principle of subsidiarity shoul
Page 11 and 12: econstruction, relevant capacities
Page 13 and 14: ‣ Areas for further study and que
Page 15 and 16: II. GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE APF II
Page 17 and 18: Item in the APF budget 16 Amount an
Page 19 and 20: AU, the relative limited focus on t
Page 21 and 22: European Parliament and NGOs contin
Page 23: It is argued by the military bias s
Page 27 and 28: 3) “Political appropriateness”
Page 29 and 30: ‣ EEAS, because APF finances peac
Page 31 and 32: The need to respond quickly to peac
Page 33 and 34: APF MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING In 20
Page 35 and 36: Second, the main APF programmes (on
Page 37 and 38: aiming at allowing a fast and effec
Page 39 and 40: mechanism, EDF has its own decision
Page 41 and 42: The costs covered by ATHENA include
Page 43 and 44: RECs that might not qualify or for
Page 45 and 46: IV. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIO
Page 47 and 48: At first sight, the Instrument for
Page 49 and 50: In the short term, this evaluation
Page 51 and 52: The evaluation recommends earmarks
Page 53 and 54: Lack of Synergy between RECs and th
Page 55: IV.4.4 AFRICAN P&S FUNDING POLICIES

part 1 of the african peace facility evaluation - European ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?